How do we know Essence and Existence are distinct?

[catholic1seeks]

I still think that @Wesrock’s example of the 5 billion-sided (or whatever number) polygon is a GREAT example that proves the distinction. A 5 billion-sided polygon is certainly possible, but that does not tell us anything about it existing — perhaps except as a thought.

 

[STT]

what religious/spiritual tradition do you associate with?

I am trying to figure things up. I believe that we are minds and what surrounding us is Qualia, mere illusion. I believe that there are other realms where other minds live within. I also believe that there are God and gods who sustain Qualia.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I’m just wondering where you get this perspective.

I’m sure you’ve been influenced by certain philosophies or spiritual traditions, no?

 

[catholic1seeks]

And relating to this thread’s question, @STT,

what would you equate existence with? What is the “essential,” most basic aspect of reality? If some things are mere illusion, fine. What is fundamental reality?

 

[STT]

I’m just wondering where you get this perspective.

I’m sure you’ve been influenced by certain philosophies or spiritual traditions, no?

Yes. I of course read a lot. That was basically my understanding of things which is minimal. I have been thinking about this for a long time. I have reasons for what I think is true. The idea that we are minds interacting through illusion of Qualia is mine.

 

[catholic1seeks]

So there are multiple minds?

Are these multiple minds eternal or equivalent to existence?

 

[STT]

What would you equate existence with?

Mind.

What is the “essential,” most basic aspect of reality? If some things are mere illusion, fine. What is fundamental reality?

Minds+Qualia (what we experience in all forms).

 

[catholic1seeks]

So only one mind?

 

[STT]

So there are multiple minds?

Yes.

Are these multiple minds eternal or equivalent to existence?

Yes, they are eternal. They are just trapped in temporal Qualia.

 

[STT]

So only one mind?

No, there are minds. They are all similar. What makes us different is our bodies. Mind is simply essence of any being with ability to experience, decide and act.

 

[catholic1seeks]

So multiple minds are eternal. Now what grounds their eternal existence? Eternal existence just means necessity. What makes 5,000,000,000 (for example – or whatever number there happens to be) minds necessary, but 5,000,000,001 minds unnecessary?

Put another way, multiple minds can only be multiple if they are distinct in some way. But individual distinction must be grounded in a prior, more fundamental cause: Why is this mind “here” or “there,” for example? So it would seem any Mind (or, God) plus 1 could not really be necessary and eternal and therefore equivalent to existence itself.

At most you could have One Eternal Mind.

 

[STT]

So multiple minds are eternal . Now what grounds their eternal existence? Eternal existence just means necessity. What makes 5,000,000,000 (for example – or whatever number there happens to be) minds necessary, but 5,000,000,001 minds unnecessary ?

They simply exist. Whatever the number is. Where do you get necessity from?

Put another way, multiple minds can only be multiple if they are distinct in some way. But individual distinction must be grounded in a prior, more fundamental cause: Why is this mind “here” or “there,” for example?

Mind does not have any location in space or time. Minds are same.

So it would seem any Mind (or, God) plus 1 could not really be necessary and eternal and therefore equivalent to existence itself.

At most you could have One Eternal Mind.

Minds simply exists. They are not equivalent to existence. Each is its own existence. So your argument doesn’t follow. Why there should be one existence, one Mind?

 

[catholic1seeks]

They simply exist. Whatever the number is. Where do you get necessity from?

If minds “simply exist,” then they exist of their own nature, hence we could just as well say they “exist necessarily.”

Mind does not have any location in space or time. Minds are same.

Technically, no. I agree. It was just an illustration of difference. However, two or more minds are distinct in some (or more) way, else they’d be the exact same entity.

Minds simply exists. They are not equivalent to existence. Each is its own existence. So your argument doesn’t follow. Why there should be one existence, one Mind?

But you are identifying mind with ultimate reality. If Mind (or really, minds as you say) is distinct from existence, then existence must be prior to it. So Mind is not the Ultimate Reality, since Existence is not necessarily tied to (your definition of) “Mind.”

In your case, “minds” require a prior, more basic explanation.

So “Minds” do really explain anything at all.

Traditional theism would agree that Mind is the ultimate explanation, insofar as Mind and Existence are really one, but there is only one, and it is distinct from the rest of reality - which is real.

Philosophically, we can see that any alternative of this would push back the question of ultimate reality. If said Mind and Existence were not one and the same, then there would be something prior that explains the existence of Mind. Hence, Mind cannot be ultimate. Alternatively, if there were more than one Minds, there would have to be some distinguishing factor, else they would be the same. But if they are different, something must account for this difference – a prior reality. Or, again, if this said One Mind were really one with all realities – like Pantheism – then that would mean this Ultimate Reality is (1) constantly changing and (2) made up of parts; but upon further reflection, Ultimate Reality cannot be either, since both of these require prior (more fundamental) causes.

 

[STT]

STT:

Mind does not have any location in space or time. Minds are same.

Technically, no. I agree. It was just an illustration of difference. However, two or more minds are distinct in some (or more) way, else they’d be the exact same entity.

They are not the same entity but they are same (things that share the same characteristics). What could make this impossible?

STT:

Minds simply exists. They are not equivalent to existence. Each is its own existence. So your argument doesn’t follow. Why there should be one existence, one Mind?

But you are identifying mind with ultimate reality. If Mind (or really, minds as you say) is distinct from existence, then existence must be prior to it. So Mind is not the Ultimate Reality, since Existence is not necessarily tied to (your definition of) “Mind.”

Existence is tied to each separate mind. Minds are ultimate reality. The rest is Qualia, mere illusion.

In your case, “minds” require a prior, more basic explanation.

So “Minds” do really explain anything at all.

Traditional theism would agree that Mind is the ultimate explanation, insofar as Mind and Existence are really one, but there is only one, and it is distinct from the rest of reality - which is real .

Why there should be one existence?

Philosophically, we can see that any alternative of this would push back the question of ultimate reality. If said Mind and Existence were not one and the same, then there would be something prior that explains the existence of Mind. Hence, Mind cannot be ultimate. Alternatively, if there were more than one Minds, there would have to be some distinguishing factor, else they would be the same.

They have different identity, identity being self-awareness that mind exist as a separate thing.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Existence is tied to each separate mind. Minds are ultimate reality. The rest is Qualia, mere illusion

That’s just re-stating your position.

They have different identity, identity being self-awareness that mind exist as a separate thing.

So this is one way the minds are separate: through their own self-awareness. This mind is different from that mind, then. So again, in order to account for more than one mind, there must be some prior reality that causes the latter. Because you cannot use “Mind” and “Ultimate Reality” in the equivalent sense as Christians do when they refer to God, for there cannot be more than one ultimate reality:

How Proofs for God Lead to Divine Simplicity

According to the First Vatican Council, the existence of God can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason through those things that have been created. (De Fide) Pope Pius X specified this statement more exactly by affirming that God’s existence can be known “as a cause is known w

strangenotions.com

 

[catholic1seeks]

@Wesrock, is what I’m saying making sense?

 

[STT]

STT:

Existence is tied to each separate mind. Minds are ultimate reality. The rest is Qualia, mere illusion

That’s just re-stating your position.

I have an argument in favor of mind, argument of change: Consider a system which its state is subject to change, S->S’. S and S’ cannot coexist therefore S has to vanishes before S’ takes place. This means that there is a point at which neither S nor S’ could exist. S’ however cannot comes out of nothing therefore there should be a mind which is aware of S and creates S’.

STT:

They have different identity, identity being self-awareness that mind exist as a separate thing.

So this is one way the minds are separate: through their own self-awareness. This mind is different from that mind, then. So again, in order to account for more than one mind, there must be some prior reality that causes the latter.

Why do you need a prior reality?

Because you cannot use “Mind” and “Ultimate Reality” in the equivalent sense as Christians do when they refer to God, for there cannot be more than one ultimate reality:

So what you are if you are not ultimate reality? An illusion? Illusion cannot cause.

 

[SalamKhan]

Essence refers to the question: “What is it?”

Whereas existence refers to the question: “Is it?”

You may conceive of an essence in your mind, but that does not necessarily mean that essence exists in objective reality. If essence and existence were identical, or if existence were part of essence, then we would not need to prove the existence of any essence. The very conception of a thing would suffice for judging its existence.

 

[SalamKhan]

Here’s something else to help you:

Existence, a Univocal Reality